The operation is a great victory against the gangs, but the story behind that success is an ability of the police to overcome its own limitation and plan this operation successfully. The reasons the gangs could flourish in the past is corruption in the police itself, which allowed drug traffickers to freely sell drugs on well-know re-sell points called "bocas de fumo". That kind of trafficking has ended and translates into a massive blow to the drug economy. Without friendly help from the police, the gangs don't have a chance to survive and keep their territories. To continue the good work, the Brazilian military police needs to reform itself. The intelligence is there, the manpower is there and the population is on the side of the governor and the mayor who have shown great courage and determination in tackling that problem.

While I congratulate the security forces, we also need to have strong border controls and strong manned border security, which is lacking. While Lula and Dilma go off about their unmanned aircraft which is supposed to cover thousands of miles of our border, we need soldiers and controls to prevent this from entering Brazil.

Also, if they want to take down the drug trade for good, they need to make prison sentences harsher, without the right to visit family on holidays, with fewer visiting rights. With the ruthlessness of these drug dealers, I'm even in favour of the death penalty for them to make sure they don't come back for good.

The action in Rio de Janeiro is a good start, taking them down should help. Now arrest the remaining ones, keep them all in jail, and strengthen our borders!

Extremely complex issue, discussions so far have gone slightly off point on whether drugs should be legalized, relevant to argument no doubt but too big an issue to bring in as aside point, so I will focus on Rio and clearing of favellas.
Whilst intentions are possibly good I fear this will do more damage than good.
Firstly I think this had to happen and was possibly a precondition of being awarded the world cup, security and tourist safety had to be seen to be improved for Fifas benefit. They need victories against gangs and perceived greater public safety to counteract any criticism of the hosting of the event in a country with such problems. Let’s not forget Fifa made record profits on South African world cup due to hugely reduced costs and inequitable arrangements seeing Fifa get all TV, ticket and marketing revenue leaving South Africa struggling to break even and paying those involved minimum amounts. Brazil they hope will allow them repeat all of the same.

They have only reclaimed 12% of favellas, and met little resistance; this means the gangs are sacrificing these areas, scaling back and reinforcing in the areas they intend to put up a united defence in. They have advance warning of raids and all main leaders, artillery and military hardware is relocated in advance. This is allowing them to create military strongholds that will not easily be broken. It is also forcing smaller gangs to merge to avoid being dismantled, again increasing the gangs strength.
Let’s not forget these gangs are not idiots with guns, there leaders are well organised, and highly intelligent, they expected to have to sacrifice a degree when world cup arrived, they know ultimately they will gain their share of the money that arrives with world cup tourists and will ultimately benefit.

The gangs are expecting the government to put on a big show, reach a balance where they have reclaimed sufficient power to keep Fifa & external paymasters happy and then stop, avoiding gang strongholds and leaving a temporary equilibrium everyone can live with (including gangs).

Problems then arise after world cup has left, gangs may want to take back areas will government have appetite to stop them? Drug markets previously kept away from tourist areas like ipanema , Leme & Copacabana, in favellas will now start to move down hills into these areas? Is inner city crime going to increase & public safety going to deteriorate as fewer inhabitents, lawabiding and otherwise can make a living in thier home area?
What about the gangs themselves? Previously used to working as competitors have been forced recently to cooperate to create united front against government, will this continue? Has the government more force than these gangs if they all united? More likely we would see all out war like in Columbia in 80s or current day Mexico.

If government is to tackle the gangs, it cant be a half measure, they need to see it through. Stopping half way, allowing them regroup, re-organise and counter would be disaster for entire country; possibly even all of South America as its most promising economy could revert to chaos and international investors run for more secure markets!

Dear Sir of The Economist
@Dwrig
Well , Do you think that moving a full armed Armored cavalry group of dozens of heavier tanks and armored assault vehicles backed by 3 thousands of heavier armed well trained soldiers (from Marine navy &Airborne assault troops army ( By the way : in Brazil , Military Policeman (PM) are soldiers not policeman at all , no mistake on that!) against gangs of less of one hundred of (cruel and brutal , of course!) scattered black delinquents hidden in the Complex Alemão shantytown ,scaring the population to death is something that may be called a policemen operation to be proud about?. Definitively no!(see my first comment)
What is really happening is just a rearrangement of power among the "Corruption on Rio "!.Not a combat against it !.believe me !.
Related to the point if Brazil as a whole is moving in the right direction , the answer is clear : I am afraid not , unless Brazil and especially the Racist and Apartheid Carioca society become a place where loyalty , respect , full recognizing of the individual merit , and that hard work of a full life pay!. What do you think about FIFA Brazilians officers with a secret account on paradise fiscal on UE with hundreds of millions of Euros received on Bribe to "Bring” Olympics to Rio de Janeiro ?.Scoundrels and mobs of higher political level are just using Olympics and Cup and promises on infrastructures constructions that will never be done on slums to make another pillage on the public money of all Brazilians .That is all !.

@Ed Deep. "Drugs are bad for the mental health, impair the ability to work and if legalized, even more consumed."

Alcohol is bad for the mental health, impair de ability to work and even though is legalized not everyone is alcoholic and none consume it whilst working, everyone is aware of that but the very stupid. Will you become a drug user if tomorrow you find out that you can buy crack in the pharmacy around the corner? I hardly think so, neither will I and the vast majority of people.

On the other hand and as I said before, prohibition is not keeping anybody from consuming drugs. All those who want it will have it. The US is fighting this war on drugs since late 80’s and early 90’s; the US Army has been throughout South America, God knows for how long, fighting drug production:

1 – Have they achieved ANY result? NO! Except to increase the sales of military hardware and “expertise”.

2 – Have the price of cocaine, crack and weed gone up due to scarcity? NO! Much to the contrary, it has come down due to the wide availability.

3 – Has the war and occupation of Afghanistan stopped the production of opium? NO! Much to the contrary, it has INCREASED.

Where does all the money go? US$136 billion every year; do you think it goes under the drugs dealer mattress? The only thing prohibition is doing is to help those who have the MONOPOLY.

You know, I like to drink a glass of wine, maybe two, but no more than that. You know why? Because it makes me SICK! With drugs is the same thing.

But don’t panic! This is only my opinion and I can’t make policy. I do understand that the countries of the world have a “no drugs” policy and I respect that and so do the Afghanistan feudal lords.

Cheers!!!

PS. I also used to smoke cigarettes, the regular ones that one can buy in the shop. I quit years ago. You know why? Because I was burning my money, was bad to my health and the habit was making me, my cloths and my flat to stink. But then again, I can put 2 and 2 together...

I think this report missed the central issue. The UPP's and the latest war operations are just mis-en-scene, a marketing thing. Cabral is a populist and is happy to provide simple, but wrong answers to the very complex problems that exist in Rio. Now that his "security" policy has proved a complete fiasco, Cabral and his staff are trying to salvage it with grandiose operations and over optimistic press releases... And to say that Dilma considers the Rio security policy the standard to be rolled out through the whole of Brazil, gives an idea of how little she understands of public safety policies... poor Rio, poor Brazil.

Cabral has already announced that the military will stay in Morro do Alemão until there is a UPP present. 2007 should not repeat. Obviously the UPP is not ready yet as the occupation of Alemão is way ahead of schedule.

Fabio C
You - and The Economist - are advocating for the legalization of drugs.
Is a matter of intelectual honesty: who will finance the consumers an their accrued cost?
Drugs are bad for the mental health, impair the ability to work and if legalized, even more consumed. Who, in the long run, will have money to buy drugs? We are talking of population, not some 0,4 % of the population who is rich and live on rents. Alas, they already have lawyers who "legalize" their consuption.
Unless drugs are very cheap - like the Cachaca in Brazil, which cost One Dollar a littre after taxes - people will plant their own cannabis, poppies and the likes. The facts are clear. In your hiphothesis of legal drugs, it should be very cheap.
If legal drugs are cheap, there is no revenue for taxation. With no taxation, who will pay for the damages drugs do to society?
Alcohol and nicotin pay over 60% of their retail price in tax in Brazil. What will be the taxation over drugs? If drug tax is high, there will be trafficking again, as it happens in Amsterdam. So...
Reality will strike back and your hyphothesis of cheap drugs do not stand. Drugs will be expensive. Why? Because the administration of the drugs will be organized - or will it be a freemaket? Who will protect the consumers? Learn from China opium consumption. There is a baseline price for drugs.
Drugs will more likely to be expensive. Tell me how drugs will be cheap. I do not know how. Someone will have to give up profits. The producer will sell only to government? At what prices? Who will make the price? A drugs market? Them, in this case, production will be free for any farmer. Regulated? So the price will be high. Government will garantee 100% purchase? Yes, who will foot the bill? If there is a surplus not purchsed, Hayek teaches us there will be a second distribution channel: trafficking.
Honest. How to legalize drugs?
Most likely the drugs will be distributed through dispensaries, like there were in the Mersey side in the UK late last century. Thus financing dispensaries will be an issue. And again, if dispensaries are difficult, there will be traffickig. Who will pay for this cost? Who is elligible to get drugs on the dispensary?
Will we give the drugs away to the consumers? Wait!! Smoking cigarrets are harmful to one's health. Thus, nobody can give away samples of cigarrets in Brazil. It is the law. No free marijuana for Brazilians. Cocaine is also bad for ones heart, so no free coke.

Another factor is that the need for cash to buy drugs is one of the origins of crime. People attack their own homes and family and after blowing it up, go on to other crimes. What are we going to do with these criminals? Jail them of course. This again cost money.

Explain - in honest epistemology - how to legalize drugs. Do not bring sophisms and fantastic hyphothesis. Just plain intelectual honesty in this actual world we live.

Some remarks: Military police and civil police are under the Governor subordination, not the mayor. Maybe your report lost an angle of the government action: so far no milicias people were arrested. there seem s to be a merge of drug dealers and milicias all around the state of rio de janeiro. The police seem to be taking sides with the milicias and exterminating the rival durg gang thus favoring the milicia and the allied drug dealers.
This operation seemed to aim to make public the arrest of hundreds of small drug dealers, mostly for Tv audineces. It did not went that way. Now they have to swip over 30 thousnad dewelings looking for criminals.

Maybe you also missed the obvious links of rio de janiro politicians with these criminals. Something another comment, maybe.

For us who actually live in Rio de Janeiro and have to cope with the drug users and their suppliers, this is welcome news. At last the price of drugs that the beautiful people snort at the beachfront will increase.

There is drug trafficking just because there are consumers. Penalize consuming of drugs and trafficking will diminish. I do not care if they are jailed or taken to a clinic. They are part of the criminal chain. In Brazil, drug consuming is crime. Article 16th Lei nº 6.368/1976. Read the penal code. Be on the know.

The Economist fails - intentionally for sure - to connect this event to the general elections in Brazil. Up to the elections, the police was on the favelas doing UPPs, but they were with a laissez faire agenda. The drug lords were selling copious amount of drugs in front of the police. No seizure of drugs, no prisons. Don't ask, don't tell. There were rules: "Nobody rocks the boat". No point of sales takeover from competing drug lords. No killings in front of the UPPs.

Someone has broken the deal. Who? I guess is that there are too many debts from the political campaign and the drug dealers did not deliver. The drug lords have financed the campaign of many politicians. The FARC from Colombia is active in Rio, trading cocaine for guns or cash.

Since 1982, when Brizola was governor of Rio de Janeiro police was not going up the hills to seize drugs. Governor orders. The drug lords have stablished themselves on the hills and in society.

Your correspondent is too compromized to tell the truth, because Brizola was allegedly a leftist.

Now we shall see what happens in the Alemao.

The television showed over 200 men fleeing from Vila Cruzeiro in a shootout with the police/army. There was occupation of the Alemao. There should be a minimum of 400 criminals at Alemao. Only 50 were arrested. The remainder 350 are free. The police has seized some 40 Tons of drugs. This was left behind. But there were seized only 70 guns, amongst old rifles and revolvers. Only cheap stuff too heavy to carry.

The drug dealers will resume business in some of the other 100 favelas in the Rio de Janeiro. And the people at Alemao will live in fear that the drug lords return and the police will go away. Whoever has collaborated with the police will be killed.

Of course there is much to do against drug dealers in the world, but what happened last weekend in Rio was not a war against drug dealers,
it was a war against the parallel power that drug dealers have in the favelas.

Congratulations to the armed forces, police and the population in Rio that worked together to extinguish those evil people from the favelas.

Try and curb your enthusiasm amigo. The estimated population of Rocinha is 120,000, not 2 million.

Some of your other points I think are exaggerated as well. Whilst I'm not belittling the problems that Rio faces, I believe the city, as the country as a whole, is moving in the right direction.

Some of the problems facing Brazil, and many other countries, will take years, maybe decades to solve. But you have to start, and Brazil has started.

This week Rio said "enough is enough". I have been moved by the reaction of the residents of some of these areas, some putting themselves at risk to dob-in criminals. That is where your base for change is, the people, and they have shown great Brazilian courage this week.

Good job to the police and authorities. Bad job to The Economist for thinking that this means "Time's up" for the bad guys. They just melted away and disappeared and will be back or move to another favela - there's just way too much money easily had by doing what they do.

If this was really going to be a success you'd have to make jobs for the people in the slum, allow them to get their belongings and move them into temporary housing, raze the whole slum and rebuild it according to some sort of plan with streets and avenues and community amenities and modern housing and whatnot. But the problem is way too huge to do that on the scale at which it's needed. So the pendulum swings again.

Good start though. Good on the people who made this push happen. Hopefully that'll lead to the next push being a little easier and the next one after that a little easier and maybe over time they can chip away at the mentality and the drug use and the gangs and the social distortion (...far behind) that pervade Brazilian social and political and economic realities.

Im from Rio, this article was well writen. This was an unsual week for us, I know we have the fame of being a dangerous city, but never saw the things getting at this point, slums taken were the head-quarter of 2 of 3 biggest factions here.

We already have been hosting great events for a long time, as Carnaval or New Years Eve, so, I dont think Rio will have a problems with terrorism, becouse this war is for money, not ideology, so even the drug dealers know bad publicity in these times will be worst for him in a near future. They wont make a statement just to show power, they think in profits terms.

When they need show power, they dont take hostages in slums or kill people on the streets, they burn buses or cars, even holding AK-47, FAL or M-16. As the article said, 'they stormed the neighbourhood, and met surprisingly little resistance'.

Armed forces can contain the drug dealers for days, weeks, or even months. But unless you kill the roots - huge poverty - they will rise again and again. However it is important to check the growth of gangs, or you will end up as Mexicans - with cartels' strength equal to government's strength.